SOCIAL MODERNISM. — By analogy with dogmatic Modernism, social Modernism may be defined as that movement of ideas and activities which, with regard to political and professional society, claims to regulate itself without taking into account the essential norms and principles proclaimed by the Church, or without assigning to the Church the place that belongs to her. It arises from an erroneous overstepping, both theoretical and practical, of the doctrinal limits of Catholic morality, under the pretext of needing to keep pace with the times, as if essential truth were mobile and subject to variation.
Such Modernist deviations were described in the encyclical *Ubi arcano* of Pius XI, dated 23 December 1922, and relate to theories advanced by some concerning «social authority, the right of property, the relations between capital and labor, the rights of workers, the relations between Church and State, between religion and politics, between class and class, between nation and nation, the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and of the episcopate, the social rights of Jesus Christ Himself, Creator and Redeemer, Lord of individuals and of peoples» (*AAS*, 14 [1922], p. 696).
Historically, an anticipation of social Modernism—though the term itself is of more recent coinage—may be seen in the intellectual movement led by Lamennais (q.v.) and his companions of *L’Avenir*, inasmuch as it distorted the concept of liberty and equated good with evil. This movement was promptly condemned by Gregory XVI in the encyclicals *Mirari vos* (1832) and *Singulari nos* (1834), followed by other documents such as the *Syllabus* of Pius IX (1864), and above all by the social encyclicals of Leo XIII, including *Libertas* (1888) and *Rerum novarum* (1891).
With the development of social studies and the rise of Christian Democracy (a social concept fostered with the favor of Rome and eagerly championed by many young priests), a notable group of conservative and integralist thinkers in France and Italy—who in fact repudiated both the name and the substance of democracy—sought to brand as social Modernists all initiatives undertaken by the more daring and sincere Christian sociologists, foremost among whom were, in France, Léon Harmel and, in Italy, Giuseppe Toniolo. They seized upon certain inexact expressions that had escaped the most ardent propagandists. The truth is that neither the promoters and supporters of Christian Democracy, nor the abbés Lemire, Naudet, Gayraud, Garnier, and Marc Sangnier in France, nor the priests Don Albertario, Don Vercesi, Don Torregrossa, P. Ghignoni, P. Semeria, Don Sturzo, and others in Italy—with their large following among the youth—can be called social Modernists. They remained, even in the heat of controversy, generally orthodox. Indeed, Leo XIII, in his encyclical *Graves de communi* (1901), had opportunely warned all aspirants to the social reign of Jesus Christ, guarding them against every possible deviation, and Pius X, in his encyclical *Il fermo proposito* of 11 June 1905, had laid down practical norms for Social Catholic Action.
Various excesses in a Modernist direction did occur at that time, however, in Belgium with the stance of Abbé Daens and his Democratic League; in France, with the organization of the *Sillon* (q.v.), condemned by Pius X (1910); and in Italy, with the journal *Battaglie d’oggi* and the organization of the National Democratic League by Don Romolo Murri (q.v.), which advocated an autonomism that could not be permitted. These were dangerous moments. In general, however, it cannot be said that social Modernism took root or established a school. At the present time, in France as in Italy and in other nations, Christian sociology is integrated within Catholic Action organizations of full doctrinal guarantee. In particular, the *Settimane sociali* (q.v.) maintain absolute orthodoxy, while allowing for free discussion in which even the most daring theses may be aired.
It does not seem appropriate to include in this classification the attempts of certain progressive or communist Christians in recent years, who have placed themselves at the service of a hand too openly untrustworthy. These efforts have remained numerically negligible and without any following whatsoever.